Sunday, June 12, 2005

Dynasties, And The Democracies That Love Them

There's a lot of discussion out there about the 2008 election and Hillary Clinton's apparent lock on the nomination. I've never been a huge Hillary fan (and a decade ago I was one of those foaming-at-the-mouth Hillary haters) but it's a measure of how disastrous Bush has been that she looks better all the time. And after a few more years of the current administration, I may count myself as one of her fans.

But I have a major misgiving about a potential Hillary presidency, and it's an issue that doesn't seem to be on anyone's radar. If she is elected in 2008, that would mean that the same two families will have had a lock on the Oval Office for almost a quarter century, starting with Bush 41's victory in 1988. It would also mean that control of the presidency or vice-presidency will have passed between two families without interruption for thirty-two years since 1980---eight straight presidential terms straddling two different centuries.

Is this what we really want?

Since Reagan was first elected, our field of presidential candidates reminds me of a kaleidoscope that has a slowly, ever-narrowing lens. I think several factors are at work here. Familiarity and voter comfort are part of it. We seem to go through periods of status quo administrations, interrupted occasionally by system shocks that usher in unknown outsiders; Watergate paving the way for Carter is an example. Sometimes the public recoils from the experience of novelty and returns to the womb of safety and continuity. This was certainly the case for twelve years after Carter's single term. And continuity obviously was an important factor in the Clinton and Bush re-elections. This voter tendency is understandable but makes me uncomfortable. It's somewhat analogous to Ben Franklin's warning about surrendering liberty in the name of security and losing both. I believe that the supremacy of a professional political class embodied by a few families with which the public feels "comfortable" is inconsistent with our basic principles of liberty and ultimately erodes democracy.

There are other factors undoubtedly at work. Money (and the name recognition required to raise it) is far more important to the political process than a generation ago. And the ubiquity of the media, the evolution of the chattering punditry and the rise of a corporatized professional media class is also important. For the past quarter century, the media has reported on, gossiped, inside-dished, and chattered about the same few political families in a sort of self-reinforcing myopic feedback loop. Could there be any better illustration of this than President Bush being asked in an interview last week---apparently seriously, by a supposedly professional reporter---whether Laura Bush is interested in running for president?

If our choice of leaders merely reflects who we are, and our media provides what we want to see and hear as a society, what does that imply about our collective willingness to take risks? Risk-taking, accepting outsiders and embracing long shots are essential parts of our national identity---from crossing the Atlantic in ships, to braving the plains in wagons, to aiming for the Moon in a tiny metal capsule. Are we still capable of that? Or are we becoming the type of society that was content to stay home sipping tea and paying taxes to an incestuous, entrenched royal family in England or Spain while others set out on their own? Are we closer to the America of 200 years ago, or are we now more like an old world, resource-hungry imperialist power that invades others without provocation, ceding inventiveness and risk-taking to upstarts like China and India? It's certainly possible to argue that increasingly loud protectionist sentiment---about both trade and immigration---and our withdrawal into an ever-shrinking handful of leaders with whom we're "comfortable" are not unrelated.

The U.S. is a huge country, with an incredibly diverse population consisting of people from every other nation on the planet. Yet the best we can do for leadership is a stale, soporific boilerplate of the same few families decade after decade, punctuated occasionally by a Supreme Court decision that decides an election. How does this jibe with our global promotion of democracy, especially in the Arab world where clans also run nations for decades at a time?

Hillary will probably be a formidable candidate. She might make a good president. And this is certainly not something I thought I'd ever say, but depending on whom she runs against and what's happening in the world three years from now, I may even vote for her. But I won't do so without thinking hard about the broader implications yet another passing of the White House keys between the same two families would have for our democracy and national identity.

56 Comments:

Wow, this is a really well thought out, and well written post. As I have posted before, I'm a liberal. However, I have misgivings about Hillary running. And it's not that she's a woman. I think your post elucidated some of the feelings I have been having but couldn't put to words. Yeah, there is something a little off about the wife of a president, or husband for that matter if it ever happened that way, running for the presidency.

We are the type of society that was/is content to stay home sipping tea but we COMPLAIN about paying taxes to an incestuous, entrenched royal family.

In 2004, 42.5% of the population voted (286,196,812), the highest since 1968. So 51% of 42.5% supported this family. How can we have a true Democracy if less than half the people vote?

The problem lies first in the parties, there are more people that can't relate to either party than to either one. Second, the obscene amount of money needed to run. Third, the electorates. Fourth, if we can't hold honest, fair election how in the world can we expect another country like Iraq to hold fair elections. Presidential elections should be federal holidays where we celebrate our country through educational means. I think you also have to look at immigration over time too; their beliefs and education and how they integrate into the current communities.

The question is, are the people willing to ignore the political tricks and elect a person that will promote our common humanity and unite us and truly put country first over money and stop the "pay to play". Of course the media trend is against us.

I wish people that sway "Wealth of Nations" in my face would read Adam's other book, "Theory of Moral Sentiments".

Electing Bush over McCain, for a number of reasons, was one of my biggest disappointments with the Republican party, and if they can't see that, then conservatives do not exist in this Republican party today.

I am, I'm proud to say, a feminist and a liberal. I had no problem with Hilary wanting to have input into Bill's decisions when Bill was President.

However, I really don't want her to win the Democratic nomination for President/Vice President for 2008. We've had enough of the dynasty. I don't want a static class of political families dominating the top of the government.

People will inevitably bring up John/John Quincy Adams when talking about political families, but what they forget is that John and John Quincy Adams ran for different political parties, with markedly different policy viewpoints. Jeb Bush running as a Democrat or Hilary running as a Rpublican would be equivalent.

I think Hillary might make a very good President. (I had no problem with her before, except that I thought she handles the formulation of the health care plan disastrously.) However, I think she would make a catastrophic running mate. The GOP will demonize anyone we nominate; why should we spare them the effort by handing them someone who has already been pre-demonized?

I am not for Hillary. I am for Barbara Boxer, and hope she would run. We need someone who does not put on kid gloves to say what she has to say when it has to be said. Besides Hillary is leaning too much on the right for my beliefs, and is quick to agree with the other side. I do not understand really why almost everyone thinks that Hillary would be the accepted choice. I think the republicans are promoting her more than the democrats are, may be because they fear someone unknown to them might be a better challenger to whomever candidate they might have. They prefer to continue to demonize the "known" over the "unknown".

". . . are we becoming the type of society that was content to stay home sipping tea and paying taxes to an incestuous, entrenched royal family in England or Spain while others set out on their own?"

More like Argentina at the time of Evita Peron. Families with a lock on high public office, the rich getting richer, poor getting poorer, tinhat diplomacy, banana republic-style government financing and a corporate kleptocracy writing our laws.

In a few years the London stage will have a popular musical based on America of the turn of the century. The only thing I don't know is whether Madonna will play Hillary in the movie version.

"More like Argentina at the time of Evita Peron. Families with a lock on high public office, the rich getting richer, poor getting poorer, tinhat diplomacy, banana republic-style government financing and a corporate kleptocracy writing our laws."

I'm certainly not a Hillary-hater, and I think Ms. Clinton would be a reasonable candidate for president on the merits, but I just can't see her overcoming the baggage of negativity she has acquired over the years to win the nomination. I also think the Democrats would be wise to choose someone who can, as Bill Clinton was able to do, claim to be an "outsider," with fresh, new ideas.

I like Hillary and think she would be a good president but with her baggage I couldn't want her as a candidate. The thought of an election with her on the ticket makes me want to cry with fatigue. And the thought of Jeb at a GOP candidate agains here or someone else just makes me want to give up and stop voting.

I have serious doubts about this country's psyche after either/both of these ran for president - can everyone just shudder at the thought of the campaigns?

I personally think it is way, way, way to early to be talking about the next election at least in any serious way. Did we have any clue in June of 1996 that George was going to be the GOP candidate much less win the next presidential election? I don't want it to be assumed that Hillary is the candidate and other interested Dems giving in because of the inevitability of a Hillary candidacy.

I like Hillary and think she would make a good president but I don't want her to run... I would love to see her develope into a powerhouse in the Senate, and be the majority leader some day.

I'm tired of the "family" think, tired of the Bush's, and yes, like you said, I'm just uncomfortable. Surely we have some other choices out there.

As far as Republican go, the only one I could even think about voting for would be McCain, and fat chance the Christian Right would let him have the nomination.

So if it is Hillary, I will vote for her and I probably will even work for her. But I won't be happy about it. Personally I like Clark a lot, but he lacks some political polish. And Howard Dean is wearing well on me, I'm from Missouri and he reminds me a little of "give em hell" Harry.

As we sit here thinking about 2006 and later 2008 what are your thoughts about who is going to be a meaningful candidate on either side?

For my money I might offer Al Gore. Or I might offer RFK Jr.. Let me tell you why: things are not going to stay static between now and 2008. I doubt things are even going to stay static until 2006.

Look outside to find out why. Especially if you were in Lake Tahoe last week when there was a white out or in Connecticut this week bearing 95 degree weather. Think about what is going to be top of mind soon and who might be most qualified to address it.

I think it matches the culture of celebrity that has rapidly proliferated since the days of "Camelot" - people vote who they know of, by celebrity. Hell, Aahnold got in the governorship of California that way.

Why do you think it takes so much money to run for president? It's all about getting what precious time and recognition you can, since the polity is too lazy to educate itself on the persons and the issues.

That said... please, God, no more Hillary. The partisan vitriol will reach new lows if she runs. Can we have someone with more class, that is more obviously principled, like Barack Obama? Please?

nathan: Gore, through his bizarre rants and early endorsement of Dean, is finished in politics. Ex-junkie RFK Jr? Please. He's never even held a public office and suddenly he's presidential material? Environmental concerns "top of the mind." Uh, yeah. It could happen.

siryn, hilzoy et. al: I agree, No to Hillary! But Barack Obama? Do you even know any of his positions? (No quick google searches, please). Some state senator from Illinois gives a decent speech at the DNC, and suddenly he's presidential material? Will you and the rest of these self-involved liberals just admit that you support Obama just because he's African American, and it makes you feel oh-so-good to be so open-minded and enlightened? "Oh, he's such a fine, articulate young man!" Miss Ophelia types like you wear your soft bigotry as if it were a merit badge. Pathetic...

It's not about race with Obama. He may or may not not be presidential material, but who out there in Demmycrap land could curry the votes to win against a Republigoon? (By the way, I'm an independent, thank you very much.)

And in this culture of celebrity, being a "rock star" or of rock star proportion gets you votes no matter what you stand for. Why do you think that some people are calling for (God help us) Condoleezza Rice in '08? Because her style is currying favor, generating more celebrity. If Paris Hilton wanted to be president, I bet you she'd win whatever party's nomination.

Back to Obama - why not him instead of Hillary? And spare us the race card, or your own "soft bigotry."

uh, yeah. you still can't tell me why you'd vote for him, other then his "celebrity." and where do you think that came from?

independent? oh, i guess you're your own person, thinking for yourself and refusing to toe any party line, gosh darn it. my mistake.

siryn, you're guilty of that which you decry. you were so quick to champion obama's "principles and class" (and what are you basing that on?) because he's a media darling even though you haven't a clue about him or his politics.

back to obama, indeed. yes, why not him instead of hillary? i believe that was the question i asked and that you can't seem to answer. (that is, without the assistance of google).

I didn't say that I would vote for him. :p I would rather see him in the ring than Hillary, however.

But looking at the choices that are out there at this time, who else has the clout among Democrats to make a serious run for the money?

It's party realpolitik.

Once the Dems made him a rock star, I took a look at his stance on the issues on his website. Pardon me for not having it memorized back and forth for you. :p He doesn't have anything much that stands out from typical democratic positions, although there are a few things that make me go hmm, especially with his retirement security ideas.

Should Hillary be the Democratic nominee, I will neither vote FOR her because her husband was President, nor vote AGAINST her because her husband was president. I understand the concerns raised about familial dynasties, but the ONLY criterion will be who would make the best president. It's a question of choosing your battles.

I think the real danger is becoming an oligarchy run by corporate power who strive for the lowest wages, lowest benefits, lowest quality of life to benefit the few. We are not citizens but consumers. Capitalism referred to today as the market system has morphed into the corporate system controlled by corporate bureaucracy.

We are not that old as a formal country, just over 200 some odd years, and things are happening exponentially. We should not take what we have in this country lightly. We should demand the truth and representation regardless of party.

Tyco's Dennis Kozlowski gave the directors his executive contract and they didn't even question it. He is found guilty of looting 600 million from the company. Your retirement money could have been in Tyco. This is the culture we live in today. Really, was Bush the best the Republican party could do? Does Bush really have traditional conservative values?

From a distance (I am European) it looks all the same to me. As if the two main political parties try to give the public the impression that they have opposing views, but in reality, they follow the Party Line as if somebody is pulling the strings from behind the scenes. So in my view, there is already a dynasty, or relatively small clique, calling the shots. It's a very clever system, a kind of "fool's democracy". Not that the situation in Europe is much better; we are playing democracy as well, albeit with more than two parties.

I'm with you. I am also an admirer of Hilary Clinton but I wish she would stay in the Senate. First of all her candidacy will be too divisive. The Democrats need someone who will be able to play hardball and not have baggage to defend. Still in some respects I like the idea only to see Falwell and Robertson foaming at the mouth as Bill Clinton moves back into the White House! Still - I kind of like Biden or Bayh myself. We'll see, I guess.

Hillary will never be President. The first thing that must be considered in any Democrat's Presidential game plan is this: If the Republicans hold serve, i.e. win the same states as in 2000 and 2004, they win in 2008.

Its simple really. A Democratic candidate has to break into the Republican Phalanx and still hold his or her own to win the presidency. This has only been done three times since 1960. On each of these occasions, the democrats pursued a Southern Strategy, Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were all southerners. Clinton even went further in adding Gore from Tennessee, creating arguably an all southern ticket, for added help.

What Red States can Hillary win in the general election? Ohio is one target, but where else. Dont't forget that if a very few thousand votes changed hands in the Blue states of Wisconsin and Minnesota, Ohio becomes irrelevant. So those Democratic blue states are in play.

I just don't see it for Hillary under any scenario short of Armegeddon.

Just putting a popular southerner on the ticket is not enough. Someone, please explain to me what Kerry got out of having John Edwards on his ticket in 2004.

Compounding this seemingly insurrmountable obstacle, is the fact that the more extreme elements of the right wing Republicans possess such a hatred of Hillary that they would consent to a more moderate candidate such as McCain who can be viewed as beating Hillary handily. The hatred of Hilliary may also result in the acceptance of these same right wing Republicans of Condi Rice on the ticket as V.P. if they were convinced that it would seal Hillary's fate.

If anyone can think of a real, hard-nosed winning strategy for Hillary, I would like to hear it.

Jeb Bush Reveals His “Mystical Warrior” Friend Last week, after “more than an hour of solemn ceremony” swearing in Rep. Marco Rubio (R-FL) as House speaker, Gov. Jeb Bush stepped to the podium to tell “a short story about ‘unleashing Chang,’ his ‘mystical warrior’ friend.”

Below, courtesy of the Gainesville Sun, are Bush’s words, “spoken before hundreds of lawmakers and politicians”:

“Chang is a mystical warrior. Chang is somebody who believes in conservative principles, believes in entrepreneurial capitalism, believes in moral values that underpin a free society.

“I rely on Chang with great regularity in my public life. He has been by my side and sometimes I let him down. But Chang, this mystical warrior, has never let me down.”

Bush then unsheathed a golden sword and gave it to Rubio as a gift.

‘’I'm going to bestow to you the sword of a great conservative warrior,'’ he said, as the crowd roared.

I don't know if Chang was mystical and if one considers working for Genghis Khan as adhering to conservative principles,--believing in entrepeneurial capitalism and the moral values that underpin a free society...well I'll just be doggoned!

I enjoyed reading through your blog. You have quite some interesting topics. To further expand your content on your blog, try visiting mine at Genealogy Search. Maybe it will help one of your visitors to find a relative from the past or to look up ancestors. Thanks!

Wow This is Deep..I know all of this sounds good but if you really want to change yourself or someone important to you. If you need a good life in your life. If You can say no to all this a good life...

I am changing the way I live today ..Think it and believe it.. You can Change Your Life and Start Living Your Dreams Today..http://www.spiritualideas.com

Mold or Mildew... I would like you to know about toxic molds. If you are getting sick often. Visit ..http://moldinfo4u.com . If You see black powder looking dust on your walls or floors that could be the toxic molds I'm Talking about.. This can be cleaned with bleach most of the time but beware of how you clean and dispose of the paper towel that you use.

TCR is smart. I appreciate his well written posts. However, cunning is not a word I would choose to apply to his analysis. To be cunning, you have to know when you are being gamed.

Leaving aside the preposterousness of thinking that Hillary Clinton is any different in substance than George Bush 43, when in fact both are slaves to the military industrial complex of which Eisenhower warned, the mouth that never stopped feeding the power elite, the fact is that the 2008 election is irrelevant. It's not going to matter who gets in then, because unless there is a Democratic takeover of at least one, preferably both houses in 2006, sliding down the slippery slope to fascism will have accelerated to such a speed of light rate that reversal will no longer be possible.

I'm a Republican too, and have voted Republican since Reagan. But the type of political discussion taking place above is meaningless today. It's from another time, a different time. Not a time when the country is on Red Alert.

I urge the host and his readers to take the time to read a recent article by economist Paul Craig Roberts, Reagan's Asst. Secretary of State, an editor of the Wall Street Journal, a contributer to The National Review, and one of the architects of supply side economics.

You can agree with what he says or disagree, but at least you will have been warned.

Here's the beginning of his article. You can find it online by putting in the title and his name.

"From Superpower to Tinhorn Dictatorshipby Paul Craig Roberts

"America is headed for a soft dictatorship by the end of Bush’s second term. Whether any American has civil rights will be decided by the discretionary power of federal officials. The public in general will tolerate the soft dictatorship as its discretionary powers will mainly be felt by those few who challenge it....."

WATCH CAREFULLY...Here it is... FREE advertising, FREE download. No cost to you! Get your FREE download NOW! Make money and get FREE advertising! This is a great program for you to take advantage of... Check this out now for FREE!